SEISS - Average earnings & grant calculation - Appeal Success?

Jeremy535897

fazer169 said:

The calculation should be based on; 

6.1 The amount of the SEISS payment is the lower of-

(a) £7,500, and

(b) 3×(𝑇𝑃12×80%).

6.2 In paragraph 6.1, TP is–

(a) except where the person is subject to the loan charge, determined by the first to apply of the following paragraphs-

(i) if the person carried on a trade in the tax years 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19, the average trading profits of those tax years,

(ii) if the person did not carry on a trade in the tax year 2016-17, the average trading profits of the tax years 2017-18 and 2018-19, and

(iii) if the person did not carry on a trade in the tax year 2017-18, the trading profits of the tax year 2018-19

Yes. I commented on the relevant parts of the Direction in a thread with another of your posts on it. In your case 5.4 is relevant.

Bluellama

I requested a review as first became self-employed towards the end of the 16-17 tax year, so earned less than 10% of my income from self-employment that year (They still counted it towards the average.) Just had a letter today which I think is basically saying no - they don't address my points, they just show the calculation again and say "We do this even if you were not working as self-employed for all of those 12 months". On the one hand, I'm very grateful to have got a grant at all, when I know so many people have missed out unfairly. On the other hand, it seems a very arbitrary way to decide on the amount - if you've been in business for under four years, basically what they count as your "average earnings" will be affected quite significantly by whether you happened to go into business towards the beginning or end of a tax year. To be consistent with their own criteria, why not only count tax years where you earned more than 50% of your income from self-employment?

Grumpy_chap

The HMRC have applied your case as per the rules.

Bluellama

Grumpy_chap said:

The HMRC have applied your case as per the rules.

I understand that, but my point is that the rules are inconsistent. Not surprising given how quickly they've been put together, but maybe if enough people question them they can at least be made fairer.

Jeremy535897

Bluellama said:

Grumpy_chap said:

The HMRC have applied your case as per the rules.

I understand that, but my point is that the rules are inconsistent. Not surprising given how quickly they've been put together, but maybe if enough people question them they can at least be made fairer.

We will know the details of the second grant on 12 June, but from what has already been said, there are likely to be no changes to the calculation of it.

antonic

Bluellama said:

Grumpy_chap said:

The HMRC have applied your case as per the rules.

I understand that, but my point is that the rules are inconsistent. Not surprising given how quickly they've been put together, but maybe if enough people question them they can at least be made fairer.

Do you mean by making the scheme fairer , you benefit ?.
Remember HMRC run the scheme according to the rules set by HM Treasury and the Government.
If your unhappy you can always complain to your MP.

[Deleted User]

Bluellama said:

Grumpy_chap said:

The HMRC have applied your case as per the rules.

I understand that, but my point is that the rules are inconsistent. Not surprising given how quickly they've been put together, but maybe if enough people question them they can at least be made fairer.

What you mean is that the rules are not giving you the outcome you desire, that is entirely different. The rules are consistent, the average will be divided by any trading years, not just an average of the complete ones, or months worked. The rules are consistent in that they apply to everyone. 

Even "fairer" is subjective. Unfortunately due to being an imperfect (but consistent) system many people are not eligble for help, to modify the system to make sure everyone got the same level of help would be overly cumbersome, bureaucratic and increase both the time involved in processing claims as well as the cost of processing. The government has already spent tens of billions on CJRS and SEISS, unfortunately they do not benefit all, but they do benefit the vast majority, some to a greater or lesser extent. 

*For reference I am a owner/director of an SME almost entirely paid through dividends and eligible for nothing, I accept that as taking part of the rough with the smooth. Sure it would be great to get a £7,500 and £6,570 lump sums, but it is not "unfair" that I do not meet the schemes requirements. 

Ziatina

Help! My new accountant for 2018/19 tax return filed it without offsetting 3k car which would have put me under the 50k, therefore eligible. I realised that when HMRC told me I was not and checked my own tax return.
I asked HMRC to review my eligibility but the letter that came still said no. I looked and found out any amendment after 23/4 was not taken into consideration.
Surely they have to look again if it was a genuine mistake?! What do you suggest I do, I’m skint and missed out on SEISS thanks to my accountant! Crazy!

JoeGans

I'm not long self-employed, so earnings are as follows ...

2018/2019 - £3,000
2017/2018 -£0
2016/2017 -£0

... As the previous two years where zero's, shouldn't they be ignored? Otherwise, they reduce my "average" from £3k down to £1k for assessment ... Thanks, JG

Jeremy535897

You must also have failed the eligibility test for the average of 2016/17, 2017/18 and 2018/19?

The time limit for filing amendments was actually 6pm on 26 March, so it was never possible to amend the return in the light of the SEISS.

Presumably your accountant asked you to check that you were happy for the return to be submitted as prepared? You don't have to claim capital allowances, so it's not a mistake in that sense, not that it would matter if it was. HMRC are refusing claims where, for example, the taxpayer wrongly filed self employment income as employment income.